(04-05-2016 07:23 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Why would the MWC gain by doing this? Good luck convincing the Front Range schools to go to a conference that's living on borrowed time. Once the GORs expire and the B1G, SEC and XII finish the ACC, the American will cease to exist since most will be absorbed by the ACC leftovers. Just look at C-USA in all its versions or even better, the WAC to get an idea what the American will become.

The AAC isn't living on borrowed time. But it certainly isn't as stable as the MWC.

The AAC in football reminds me of the old A-10. The conference was held in place by blocks by the Big East keeping prominent teams in the A-10. Cincy blocked Xavier. Villanova blocked Temple.

Once the blocks were lifted, things shifted. We all knew they'd eventually get lifted. But it took a very very long time.

And while that was going on, lots of other teams had their shot to ride to prominence. And when it ended, things didn't end up too badly for the A-10.

The AAC has more football depth and much better basketball than the MWC. If they aren't raided, they're going to be just fine. An upgrade for the new schools in the league. And Uconn or ECU getting picked up by a P5 is much less of a lock than Temple or Xavier getting plucked off. Nothing could be the result.

---

None of the AAC teams are likely to bolt to the MWC at this point. And vice versa. Other than the fact that they aren't in the P5, they're all pretty happy where they are. The two conferences don't even meet in a bowl game. That's why combining the conferences isn't going to happen.

(04-05-2016 03:13 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 02:34 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  "What Would An AAC-MW "Merger" Be Like?"

Answer:

Yes! Damn your eyes!

Too LATE

(04-05-2016 01:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The biggest issue I see with a straight up merger is its just too big (if the AAC lost 4, you'd still be talking about a 20 team conference). I think you'd be better off consolidating the best 6-8 out of the MW with whats left of the AAC. T

One thing that makes me pause about this MW-AAC 'merger' (really, code for "AAC raids the best MW teams for the AAC") talk is that it almost always seems to be initiated by fans of AAC schools, rarely by fans of Boise, SDSU, etc. That suggests right there that the AAC needs it more and would benefit more from these schemes.

Also, merging the best 6-8 of the MWC with "what's left" of the AAC is based on the idea that somehow the AAC has no "dead wood". It's an AAC-centric POV that is unlikely to be shared by the better MWC schools. Especially since, if we are talking about a post-raid AAC that has lost 4 teams, those remaining AAC schools will be even less valuable than what the AAC has now.

IMO, this is only possibly doable if the top 6 or so schools from both conferences break off and form their own better league, now, before any raids take place.

That would possibly, just possibly, result in more money, enough to justify forming a new conference. Probably not, but worth trying to run numbers on.

Even then, it probably isn't worth doing because (a) the money likely won't be much more, (b) the same instability - everyone in the league will be pining for and positioning for a P5 gig - will still remain, and © the geographic sprawl (yes, that does matter) will dampen fan interest on both sides. Maybe at SDSU playing a football game vs UConn or USF or Cincy is a nice novelty (and vice-versa), but only once every five years or so. If it's every year, it's a chore and nobody cares because of the lack of geo-cultural familiarity. And if you're going to have "wings" in which UConn and SDSU don't play each other but only meet in a title game, your just adding a layer of conference bureaucracy so why not remain in separate conferences to begin with?

You often point out that geographically tight G5 aren't worth anything. But, it also bears noting that the most stable and powerful P5 conferences - the SEC, B1G, and PAC - are very cohesive geographically, have strong regional/cultural identities. This suggests that geo-unity does add value, it's just that, in cases like the MAC, it can't overcome the inherent lack of value of those schools.

Moreso than any other major sport, college athletics is based on history and traditions, and geographic/cultural ties facilitate that. This remains true despite all the surface-level conference rearrangements and technological/media changes and innovations. At the end of the day, the SEC is powerful and stable because Ole Miss 'hates' LSU and vice-versa and they have for more than a century so there is enormous regional fan interest there, especially since as flagships, they are perceived to embody/personify their respective states so it is the closest thing people in either state get to one state clashing with the other.

Let's face it: In all likelihood, schemes of this kind are like bums on skid row rearranging the cardboard boxes and moldy mattresses they sleep on in the alleys to be a little more comfortable than what they had the night before. The only real salvation/improvement will be from getting a P5 golden ticket.

I agree with you QUO. Excellent, well thought out post.

IMO if anything is done it should be like you say, take the top 6 or so schools from each conference and form a new conference. Lets face it, there are lesser schools in each conference.

(04-05-2016 05:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Not this again...the two best of the rest leagues should stay as they are. The MWC represents the Mountain states and a bit of the west coast. Similarly, the AAC represents New England, East Coast, the South, Florida, the kind of south/Midwest (Tulsa) and Texas. I guess that was a terrible comparison....cheers!

The AAC represents nothing geographically. There is ZERO geographic identity to the AAC--like CUSA, its just a mish mash of left over pieces. The MW is more coherent than CUSA and the AAC, but honestly, there isn't much that's the same about Boulder and San Diego other than being west of Texas--and the travel distances are worse than in CUSA/AAC.

My point is and has always been that regional conferences don't work for the G5 schools. They have been tried and tried with a myriad of different lineups. The bottom line is regional G5 conferences have been proven over multiple contract negotiations stretching over multiple decades to be nearly worthless to TV. Hey---a national G5 conference might turn out to be just as worthless--but it at least it has the advantage of not having already been tried for 3 decades and PROVEN to be worthless. Just sayin....

I don't think the regional nature of the conferences are what's making them unattractive to TV, it's that they're G5. With few exceptions, none of them are going to generate interest from major media outlets unless they're willing to play midweek games or something. You can group them regionally, nationally or alphabetically and the story is going to be much the same. If Central Florida and Boise State are great, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't. If Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't.

This also applies to a lot of the properties that are in G5 conferences too, IMO.

(04-05-2016 01:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is no upside to a merger of these two conferences - only a downside.

In football, as separate conferences they have two chances to put their champion in an NY6 bowl. Together, they only have one.

In basketball, each separate conference gets one autobid to the NCAAT. Granted, in most years both leagues would probably get at least one at-large bid. But this year, had they been a single conference, it's likely that the teams in the MWC would not have been represented in the tourney. I'd guess that, at least half the time, being one conference would cost them a bid.

As a practical matter, when merged the two divisions would likely operate in basketball as if they were separate conferences, with little or no crossover scheduling. A conference tournament with 22 teams in four time zones would be a logistical nightmare and likely a financial flop.

And all of the above would be the best case scenario for the new league. Every time one of the 24 combined teams gets poached by a richer conference, the outlook is worse for those left behind. It's hard to see any justification for a merger.

You could thrown in there the CFP money which on a per conference basis is said to be capped at $10 million. The most amount of money the AAC could earn via the CFP was this year placing a team in a major bowl game and finishing as the #1 strongest G5 conference. Its better financially to finish #2 with 12 teams than #1 with 24.

The direction it seems like its going in is a smaller 10 team G5 conference with more independents like NMSU, UMass and Idaho left in the margins. The SBC is moving forward with 10. The AAC said if they lose 2 schools they'll most likely stay at 10.

CUSA has both divisions split and they rebuild back to 10 each is very possible.

CUSA East: Georgia St, Coastal, South Alabama
CUSA West: Arkansas St, ULL, Texas St

That would most likely be the nail in the coffin for the SBC who could hang on like the WAC as a basketball conference but be done as a G5. ULM, Troy, App, GaSouthern would join Idaho, NMSU, UMass as indy schools.

MWC because of the split Pacific/Front Range geography will probably stay at least at 12. MAC has been at 12+ for 20 seasons and its become a tradition there.

(04-06-2016 08:37 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree with you QUO. Excellent, well thought out post.

IMO if anything is done it should be like you say, take the top 6 or so schools from each conference and form a new conference. Lets face it, there are lesser schools in each conference.

i agree that a completely new conference would be theoretically be the best way to form the best possible G5 conference. But that can't happen for several reasons--the long wait for NCAA auto-bids and the lack of inclusion in the current CFP agreement being the most significant. Thus, any attempt to improve the status quo must be derived from the existing shell of the AAC or MW. Since the exit fees are lower in the MW--the current AAC is going to be the most effective vehicle for that purpose since it's cheaper for teams to move to the AAC than vice versa.

Yes, the P5 conferences are regional. Regional works fine when your building blocks begin with LSU and Alabama. It works less well when your building blocks are G5 teams and there are no tent pole programs. It's also worth noting that these old P5 conferences were regional for a reason---they were designed years ago before Tv was even a consideration. Thier design has more to do with rail travel than media interest. So, the whole concept behind the G5 emulating P5 conference design with subpar building blocks using antiquated pre-television reasoning seems a little silly. Hell, even those regional P5's are becoming more far flung in an effort to gain more subscribers to conference networks.

For now, I do think some sort of expansion by the AAC using the best MW schools would provide those members with the best platform for success over the rest of the current CFP agreement. It would essentially place most all of the highest budget G5 programs into a single conference.

Such a conference would likely be a pretty powerful force within the G5. As a nationwide conference with a TV contract that nationally televises nearly every football game and every basketball game---that conference will easily over the course of a few years become the most recognized G5 conference in the nation. It would be the most followed G5, the most talked about G5, the most popular G5, with the largest fan base, with the largest footprint---and this (along with its larger budgets) would give the conference a recruiting advantage over the other G's that would show up on the field more times than not. Such a national conference would be a pretty attractive tv property for cable sports networks who broadcast nationally. What better for cable networks whos broadcast footprint includes the entire country than a league that fits that same footprint?

(04-06-2016 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Since the exit fees are lower in the MW--the current AAC is going to be the most effective vehicle for that purpose since it's cheaper for teams to move to the AAC than vice versa.

PRoblem is you still have AAC teams that have no place in a "nationwide best-of-the-rest conference." They aren't state flagships or in top 20-30 metro areas, and they don't have low-P5 type attendance.

Quote: Thier design has more to do with rail travel than media interest. So, the whole concept behind the G5 emulating P5 conference design with subpar building blocks using antiquated pre-television reasoning seems a little silly. Hell, even those regional P5's are becoming more far flung in an effort to gain more subscribers to conference networks.

You're right that "regional" isn't really the word for conferences that stretch from Omaha to Piscataway and College Station TX and Columbia MO to Columbia SC. But there is an element of regional identity. New Jersey people feel more akin (or less alien) to Chicago people than to Atlanta people.

I thought the Aresco League had the start of an identity as a small m or capital M metro conference, with teams in Houston, DAllas, Philadelphia, Orlando, Tampa (top 20 markets) plus Memphis, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Hartford (or NYC if you can make the claim work). SDSU fit that group like a glove, in a way that MArshall or Southern Miss doesn't. (No one's going to kick ECU or NAvy out of a football conference either.)

Quote:For now, I do think some sort of expansion by the AAC using the best MW schools would provide those members with the best platform for success over the rest of the current CFP agreement. It would essentially place most all of the highest budget G5 programs into a single conference.

It's a real risk for a chance of a benefit.

Quote:It would be the most followed G5, the most talked about G5, the most popular G5, with the largest fan base, with the largest footprint---and this (along with its larger budgets) would give the conference a recruiting advantage over the other G's that would show up on the field more times than not.

But in their footprint, the MWC already has all that. They're the only G5 west of I-35. It would be a lot less heavy lifting to get the MWC's dead-weight games on ESPN platforms than it would be to realign into a nationwide conference.

Quote:Such a national conference would be a pretty attractive tv property for cable sports networks who broadcast nationally. What better for cable networks whos broadcast footprint includes the entire country than a league that fits that same footprint?

Those arguments sound plausible, but those arguments were all made louder, harder and stronger for a league that had Boise State, Houston, Louisville, Cincinnati and Memphis, plus the C7 in basketball, and Rutgers, UConn, St Johns and Seton Hall tapping the NYC market keg, and when it was time to put money on the table the TV networks were unimpressed.

I think it's a hard sell to Air Force or Colorado State or UNLV that a Coast-to-Coast Conference v2.0 will get paid more than the BigEAstHomer version.

(04-06-2016 11:44 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Since the exit fees are lower in the MW--the current AAC is going to be the most effective vehicle for that purpose since it's cheaper for teams to move to the AAC than vice versa.

PRoblem is you still have AAC teams that have no place in a "nationwide best-of-the-rest conference." They aren't state flagships or in top 20-30 metro areas, and they don't have low-P5 type attendance.

Quote: Thier design has more to do with rail travel than media interest. So, the whole concept behind the G5 emulating P5 conference design with subpar building blocks using antiquated pre-television reasoning seems a little silly. Hell, even those regional P5's are becoming more far flung in an effort to gain more subscribers to conference networks.

You're right that "regional" isn't really the word for conferences that stretch from Omaha to Piscataway and College Station TX and Columbia MO to Columbia SC. But there is an element of regional identity. New Jersey people feel more akin (or less alien) to Chicago people than to Atlanta people.

I thought the Aresco League had the start of an identity as a small m or capital M metro conference, with teams in Houston, DAllas, Philadelphia, Orlando, Tampa (top 20 markets) plus Memphis, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Hartford (or NYC if you can make the claim work). SDSU fit that group like a glove, in a way that MArshall or Southern Miss doesn't. (No one's going to kick ECU or NAvy out of a football conference either.)

Quote:For now, I do think some sort of expansion by the AAC using the best MW schools would provide those members with the best platform for success over the rest of the current CFP agreement. It would essentially place most all of the highest budget G5 programs into a single conference.

It's a real risk for a chance of a benefit.

Quote:It would be the most followed G5, the most talked about G5, the most popular G5, with the largest fan base, with the largest footprint---and this (along with its larger budgets) would give the conference a recruiting advantage over the other G's that would show up on the field more times than not.

But in their footprint, the MWC already has all that. They're the only G5 west of I-35. It would be a lot less heavy lifting to get the MWC's dead-weight games on ESPN platforms than it would be to realign into a nationwide conference.

Quote:Such a national conference would be a pretty attractive tv property for cable sports networks who broadcast nationally. What better for cable networks whos broadcast footprint includes the entire country than a league that fits that same footprint?

Those arguments sound plausible, but those arguments were all made louder, harder and stronger for a league that had Boise State, Houston, Louisville, Cincinnati and Memphis, plus the C7 in basketball, and Rutgers, UConn, St Johns and Seton Hall tapping the NYC market keg, and when it was time to put money on the table the TV networks were unimpressed.

I think it's a hard sell to Air Force or Colorado State or UNLV that a Coast-to-Coast Conference v2.0 will get paid more than the BigEAstHomer version.

We have worked the regional conference models for 3 decades at the G5 level with little to no results to show for it. Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself. The reality is the AAC by itself (after everyone bailed in 2013) was still worth twice what the old CUSA model was worth. Tack on Air Force, Boise, SDSU, and a few more select schools--my bet is that it could have initially yielded 3 million a team (that was about what McMurphy and others were expecting). Now, give that platform 6 year together on national TV. Let that group control the access bowl most years and typical end the season with multiple top 25 teams---and my bet is it would be an attractive enough tv property that it would begins to pull away from the other G5's with its 2nd TV contract. If it fails to make much head way after 2 or 3 contract rounds---then it can always disband into regional components. At 16, it will be large enough to break into 2 regional conferences if the experiment is a failure. The risk is minimal.

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We have worked the regional conference models for 3 decades at the G5 level with little to no results to show for it. Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

Fair or not, that's the reality. The MWC is a $20M a year conference with what they've got now. Without a compelling case that jumping to the AAC represents a big step up, they'll pass.

Quote:The reality is the AAC by itself (after everyone bailed in 2013) was still worth twice what the old CUSA model was worth.

Huh? CUSA 2011 got $14M per. AAC got $20M per. That's not 2x, and that's with swapping UTEP, USM, UAB, Rice and Marshall for Navy, UConn, Cincy and um, Temple and USF.

Quote:Tack on Air Force, Boise, SDSU, and a few more select schools--my bet is that it could have initially yielded 3 million a team (that was about what McMurphy and others were expecting).

The Aresco LEague didn't get what everyone expected. (Even I expected $3-4M per school for you guys.) That's going to weigh on the minds of MWC schools you're trying to recruit.

Quote:The risk is minimal.

There are costs to moving--exit and entry fees, rebranding, etc. If ESPN bought out the CBS half of the MWC package, would you advise UH to pay $5M to jump, with say UConn, Cincy and ECU?

So why do you expect the MWC to do a mirror image?

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

It's not unfair. It's dealing with real-world concerns. Your sales pitch is, "Trust us, university presidents, the revenues of this new league will be underwhelming for 10 years, but after that we'll be making so much money you won't believe it. Totally worth the millions you'll be giving up now by paying exit fees and foregoing six years' of March Madness money from your current conference. Just trust us, and don't think about the fact that even if the second TV contract is much larger, it won't be signed until long after your university has moved on to its next president."

(04-06-2016 09:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 05:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Not this again...the two best of the rest leagues should stay as they are. The MWC represents the Mountain states and a bit of the west coast. Similarly, the AAC represents New England, East Coast, the South, Florida, the kind of south/Midwest (Tulsa) and Texas. I guess that was a terrible comparison....cheers!

The AAC represents nothing geographically. There is ZERO geographic identity to the AAC--like CUSA, its just a mish mash of left over pieces. The MW is more coherent than CUSA and the AAC, but honestly, there isn't much that's the same about Boulder and San Diego other than being west of Texas--and the travel distances are worse than in CUSA/AAC.

My point is and has always been that regional conferences don't work for the G5 schools. They have been tried and tried with a myriad of different lineups. The bottom line is regional G5 conferences have been proven over multiple contract negotiations stretching over multiple decades to be nearly worthless to TV. Hey---a national G5 conference might turn out to be just as worthless--but it at least it has the advantage of not having already been tried for 3 decades and PROVEN to be worthless. Just sayin....

I don't think the regional nature of the conferences are what's making them unattractive to TV, it's that they're G5. With few exceptions, none of them are going to generate interest from major media outlets unless they're willing to play midweek games or something. You can group them regionally, nationally or alphabetically and the story is going to be much the same. If Central Florida and Boise State are great, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't. If Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't.

This also applies to a lot of the properties that are in G5 conferences too, IMO.

True, which is why I mentioned Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, two fierce rivals in the same metro area and same conference. For national purposes, whether it's a backyard brawl or two randos from opposite coasts, the interest meter goes up in proportion to the quality of the teams. A "national" G5 conference isn't a rising tide that causes all boats to lift. It just makes teams travel greater distances for their games.

(04-06-2016 03:09 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 09:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 05:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Not this again...the two best of the rest leagues should stay as they are. The MWC represents the Mountain states and a bit of the west coast. Similarly, the AAC represents New England, East Coast, the South, Florida, the kind of south/Midwest (Tulsa) and Texas. I guess that was a terrible comparison....cheers!

The AAC represents nothing geographically. There is ZERO geographic identity to the AAC--like CUSA, its just a mish mash of left over pieces. The MW is more coherent than CUSA and the AAC, but honestly, there isn't much that's the same about Boulder and San Diego other than being west of Texas--and the travel distances are worse than in CUSA/AAC.

My point is and has always been that regional conferences don't work for the G5 schools. They have been tried and tried with a myriad of different lineups. The bottom line is regional G5 conferences have been proven over multiple contract negotiations stretching over multiple decades to be nearly worthless to TV. Hey---a national G5 conference might turn out to be just as worthless--but it at least it has the advantage of not having already been tried for 3 decades and PROVEN to be worthless. Just sayin....

I don't think the regional nature of the conferences are what's making them unattractive to TV, it's that they're G5. With few exceptions, none of them are going to generate interest from major media outlets unless they're willing to play midweek games or something. You can group them regionally, nationally or alphabetically and the story is going to be much the same. If Central Florida and Boise State are great, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't. If Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't.

This also applies to a lot of the properties that are in G5 conferences too, IMO.

True, which is why I mentioned Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, two fierce rivals in the same metro area and same conference. For national purposes, whether it's a backyard brawl or two randos from opposite coasts, the interest meter goes up in proportion to the quality of the teams. A "national" G5 conference isn't a rising tide that causes all boats to lift. It just makes teams travel greater distances for their games.

I agree. It wouldn't work, and as someone said before the MWC schools don't seem to want it as much as the AAC schools..different dynamics at play with them. They have some very long rivalries and political connections that exist that aren't ever talked about on here...probably not understood. My point is there is valid explanations for why it won't happen. I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it ever does. I won some friendly bets that Air Force wouldn't join the Big East and I'll be happy to make some bets on MWC not coming again. Cheers!

20 teams-4 divisions

East: Temple, UConn, Navy (FB only), UMass, Old Dominion

South: ECU, USF, UCF, Memphis, Cincy

South West: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Colorado St

West: Boise, SD St, Fresno, BYU/Utah St, UNLV

(04-06-2016 03:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

It's not unfair. It's dealing with real-world concerns. Your sales pitch is, "Trust us, university presidents, the revenues of this new league will be underwhelming for 10 years, but after that we'll be making so much money you won't believe it. Totally worth the millions you'll be giving up now by paying exit fees and foregoing six years' of March Madness money from your current conference. Just trust us, and don't think about the fact that even if the second TV contract is much larger, it won't be signed until long after your university has moved on to its next president."

Agree. Nobody is jumping to anything anymore without a contract in front of them guaranteeing the benefits. There will be no leaps of faith among g5 conferences members. Risk is simply too high

(04-06-2016 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We have worked the regional conference models for 3 decades at the G5 level with little to no results to show for it. Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

Fair or not, that's the reality. The MWC is a $20M a year conference with what they've got now. Without a compelling case that jumping to the AAC represents a big step up, they'll pass.

Quote:The reality is the AAC by itself (after everyone bailed in 2013) was still worth twice what the old CUSA model was worth.

Huh? CUSA 2011 got $14M per. AAC got $20M per. That's not 2x, and that's with swapping UTEP, USM, UAB, Rice and Marshall for Navy, UConn, Cincy and um, Temple and USF.

Quote:Tack on Air Force, Boise, SDSU, and a few more select schools--my bet is that it could have initially yielded 3 million a team (that was about what McMurphy and others were expecting).

The Aresco LEague didn't get what everyone expected. (Even I expected $3-4M per school for you guys.) That's going to weigh on the minds of MWC schools you're trying to recruit.

Quote:The risk is minimal.

There are costs to moving--exit and entry fees, rebranding, etc. If ESPN bought out the CBS half of the MWC package, would you advise UH to pay $5M to jump, with say UConn, Cincy and ECU?

So why do you expect the MWC to do a mirror image?

Right now the MW has a unequal revenue distribution system that effectively guarantees that Boise will earn more than most any other MW school. That usually in and of itself is enough to eventually sow some seeds of discontent. Additionally, I would expect the risk for such a move to be shared. I would expect that the AAC would either pay a portion of the exit fee (or perhaps even all of it). Since such a move would be made after the exits of 2 teams (Im assuming they want to leave prior to 27 months, meaning an exit fee likely of 15-20 million each). That exit fee money would be available to smooth over expenses and help make a deal work.

Look, the fact of the matter is this same group of schools was willing to merge with the leftovers from CUSA. That leads me to believe there is at least some reason to believe that if the right package of MW teams were offered together as a group, they might look very favorably on the concept.

While I do think the national concept would result in an increase in per team value immediately, I do not believe the full value would be realized until a second contract cycle (once the group had established itself better on the national landscape and had created a ratings track record).

I was off on the old CUSA numbers. I was thinking of the 1 million a team they are getting now. Still, the AAC configuration did increase the contract value by a third, and that contract was negotiated under very negative conditions for the conference.

Bottom line---maybe it wouldn't work. But we KNOW the current regional configurations don't work and we have 3 decades of data that proves it. So I see 2 choices, keep doing what we know doesn't work. Or---try something different.

(04-06-2016 08:46 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

It's not unfair. It's dealing with real-world concerns. Your sales pitch is, "Trust us, university presidents, the revenues of this new league will be underwhelming for 10 years, but after that we'll be making so much money you won't believe it. Totally worth the millions you'll be giving up now by paying exit fees and foregoing six years' of March Madness money from your current conference. Just trust us, and don't think about the fact that even if the second TV contract is much larger, it won't be signed until long after your university has moved on to its next president."

Agree. Nobody is jumping to anything anymore without a contract in front of them guaranteeing the benefits. There will be no leaps of faith among g5 conferences members. Risk is simply too high

There is always risk. Your "risk" of changing amounts to a little over a million a team (assuming the league could get no contract at all). Most MW schools would actually earn more just because every AAC team gets 2 million a year. That said, I agree that it would have to earn more and I think it will earn more initially. I just think the initial increase will be modest, but will grow larger as the conference establishes itself as the premier G5 league. The reality is college football is a business. No new business comes with a guarantee. If administrators want to stick with a formula that makes them very little money--then that's simply a risk of a different sort. They currently are watching and sitting on their hands as they fall farther and farther behind the P5 financially. The G5 are not as lucrative and valuable as the P5. Its going to take innovation and risks to stay within shouting distance of the P5 over the next decade. I do think that a best of the rest (or as close as you can reasonably get given the situation) national conference is a life raft that might be able to give a group of 12-16 schools a shot of at least surviving the coming changes.

Unfortunately, school administrators as a group are a very risk averse bunch. I wont be a bit surprised to see them continue doing what they know doesn't work because it is the path of least resistance and requires the least personal career risk.

(04-06-2016 08:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We have worked the regional conference models for 3 decades at the G5 level with little to no results to show for it. Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

Fair or not, that's the reality. The MWC is a $20M a year conference with what they've got now. Without a compelling case that jumping to the AAC represents a big step up, they'll pass.

Quote:The reality is the AAC by itself (after everyone bailed in 2013) was still worth twice what the old CUSA model was worth.

Huh? CUSA 2011 got $14M per. AAC got $20M per. That's not 2x, and that's with swapping UTEP, USM, UAB, Rice and Marshall for Navy, UConn, Cincy and um, Temple and USF.

Quote:Tack on Air Force, Boise, SDSU, and a few more select schools--my bet is that it could have initially yielded 3 million a team (that was about what McMurphy and others were expecting).

The Aresco LEague didn't get what everyone expected. (Even I expected $3-4M per school for you guys.) That's going to weigh on the minds of MWC schools you're trying to recruit.

Quote:The risk is minimal.

There are costs to moving--exit and entry fees, rebranding, etc. If ESPN bought out the CBS half of the MWC package, would you advise UH to pay $5M to jump, with say UConn, Cincy and ECU?

So why do you expect the MWC to do a mirror image?

Right now the MW has a unequal revenue distribution system that effectively guarantees that Boise will earn more than most any other MW school. That usually in and of itself is enough to eventually sow some seeds of discontent. Additionally, I would expect the risk for such a move to be shared. I would expect that the AAC would either pay a portion of the exit fee (or perhaps even all of it). Since such a move would be made after the exits of 2 teams (Im assuming they want to leave prior to 27 months, meaning an exit fee likely of 15-20 million each). That exit fee money would be available to smooth over expenses and help make a deal work.

Look, the fact of the matter is this same group of schools was willing to merge with the leftovers from CUSA. That leads me to believe there is at least some reason to believe that if the right package of MW teams were offered together as a group, they might look very favorably on the concept.

While I do think the national concept would result in an increase in per team value immediately, I do not believe the full value would be realized until a second contract cycle (once the group had established itself better on the national landscape and had created a ratings track record).

I was off on the old CUSA numbers. I was thinking of the 1 million a team they are getting now. Still, the AAC configuration did increase the contract value by a third, and that contract was negotiated under very negative conditions for the conference.

Bottom line---maybe it wouldn't work. But we KNOW the current regional configurations don't work and we have 3 decades of data that proves it. So I see 2 choices, keep doing what we know doesn't work. Or---try something different.

Boise State is the most valuable team for football in the MWC. The other schools need them for survival until another MWC school starts winning games and be like Boise for a team that have a winning season since the late 1990's.

(04-06-2016 08:46 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Don't you think its a bit unfair to require a national conference to immediately outperform the current models with no track record and no time to establish itself.

It's not unfair. It's dealing with real-world concerns. Your sales pitch is, "Trust us, university presidents, the revenues of this new league will be underwhelming for 10 years, but after that we'll be making so much money you won't believe it. Totally worth the millions you'll be giving up now by paying exit fees and foregoing six years' of March Madness money from your current conference. Just trust us, and don't think about the fact that even if the second TV contract is much larger, it won't be signed until long after your university has moved on to its next president."

Agree. Nobody is jumping to anything anymore without a contract in front of them guaranteeing the benefits. There will be no leaps of faith among g5 conferences members. Risk is simply too high

I agree 100%

Why would any Front Range school leave the MWC for a place so unstable like the American? A conference that has two of its members (UConn and Cincy) lobbying hard to leave for the first P5 conference that will take them. A conference that its main TV partner has made it clear they'll void the tv contract if two of the four hot properties they have (UConn, Cincinnati, Temple and Houston) leave. Why would any school in the Mountain and Pacific time zone risk being stuck with Central and Eastern time zone schools they have no desire to be affiliated with in the first place? Just look at C-USA 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 to get an idea of what happens when you get a bunch of misfits in one conference. Let's not confuse Colorado State and New Mexico with Marshall and Southern Miss. The latter are desperate to leave their current conference, the former have the luxury to wait for something better or worse case scenario stay put. The MWC might not be the best place in the G5 purgatory but it beats the instability of the AAC and it's miles ahead of C-USA 3.0, SBC and MAC.

(04-06-2016 03:09 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 09:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 05:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Not this again...the two best of the rest leagues should stay as they are. The MWC represents the Mountain states and a bit of the west coast. Similarly, the AAC represents New England, East Coast, the South, Florida, the kind of south/Midwest (Tulsa) and Texas. I guess that was a terrible comparison....cheers!

The AAC represents nothing geographically. There is ZERO geographic identity to the AAC--like CUSA, its just a mish mash of left over pieces. The MW is more coherent than CUSA and the AAC, but honestly, there isn't much that's the same about Boulder and San Diego other than being west of Texas--and the travel distances are worse than in CUSA/AAC.

My point is and has always been that regional conferences don't work for the G5 schools. They have been tried and tried with a myriad of different lineups. The bottom line is regional G5 conferences have been proven over multiple contract negotiations stretching over multiple decades to be nearly worthless to TV. Hey---a national G5 conference might turn out to be just as worthless--but it at least it has the advantage of not having already been tried for 3 decades and PROVEN to be worthless. Just sayin....

I don't think the regional nature of the conferences are what's making them unattractive to TV, it's that they're G5. With few exceptions, none of them are going to generate interest from major media outlets unless they're willing to play midweek games or something. You can group them regionally, nationally or alphabetically and the story is going to be much the same. If Central Florida and Boise State are great, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't. If Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, that game will generate interest. If they're not, it won't.

This also applies to a lot of the properties that are in G5 conferences too, IMO.

True, which is why I mentioned Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, two fierce rivals in the same metro area and same conference. For national purposes, whether it's a backyard brawl or two randos from opposite coasts, the interest meter goes up in proportion to the quality of the teams. A "national" G5 conference isn't a rising tide that causes all boats to lift. It just makes teams travel greater distances for their games.

Sorry I was talking about that properties is in P5 conferences have basically no value either.

Unless you are a "blue blood" football or basketball school there isn't automatic value.